Island Line services, Isle of Wight. General discussion

[whole diary]

[broadgage]

Hydrogen  may have a role, but its fans seldom mention that ~60% electrolysis efficiency x ~60% fuel cell efficiency means you are losing nearly two thirds of your energy.  There has to be a lot of "spare " renewable energy around to make that make sense. The technology should improve,  but is it really going to get up to say 80% for  both steps so that overall losses are lower than what you end up with?

It is worse than that, Hydrogen for transport use needs to be compressed, and this also uses appreciable energy. Or possibly cooled to a super cold liquid which uses even more energy.

[Western Pathfinder]

Things are looking up for Hydrogen, and without the need for a fuel cell,great performance from ice fuelled by gas alone,being developed beyond prototype by a British company that we've all heard of JCB.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wDKLoLUQgH0&t=14s

[mjones]

Using hydrogen in an internal combustion engine is even less efficient than using a fuel cell. You would be lucky to get 20% of your energy back.

[Western Pathfinder]

JCB would appear to be getting some very good results with a more efficient percentage.

[broadgage]

I was thinking of suggestions a few years back in various places it would almost certainly be removed. Probably by battery fans, determined to force a prototype into use where it wasn’t needed…

My wife has a battery fan, which I think cost €1.99, and is practically useless.

On the matter of battery powered trains, I keenly await the entry into service of something battery powered, so we can see how it works in real life. Perhaps then, we can forget all about it, other than maybe for very short gaps in electrical feed, and move on to proving that hydrogen is no use for railway vehicles. I may very well be wrong, and will accept that with my customary good grace if and when it happens.

I am a little more optimistic about battery trains for both branch lines and for sections of main lines where electrification is problematic.
Whilst a practical test would be best, an ACCURATE forecast of the performance and usefulness of a battery train may be achieved as follows.
Take an existing EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit),  used on a route similar in line speed and gradient profile, to that proposed for battery power. Fit a KWH meter to measure the total energy used over a days operation. Assess the size of battery required to supply that many KWH, with a safety margin.
Allow for brief top up charges at the terminus.
Example the metered consumption of the EMU over a typical day was 1000 KWH.
Without any charging during the day, a battery able to supply 1000 KWH is needed in theory. In practice 150% of that figure would be prudent.

More complex example.
A days work consists of 5 return trips on a branch line. Each return trip uses 200 KWH. After each return trip there is a 6 minute layover with charging available at 250 kw.
Total energy used per day is 1000 KWH. But each  of the four 6 minute layovers gives a 25 KWH charge so the battery discharge is 900 KWH.

Even better would be to use for test purposes an existing DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) with ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION on the actual route proposed for battery operation. Fit KWH meters to measure the KWH used in a days work.

A purpose designed battery train should do better than a conversion.

[Electric train]

I was thinking of suggestions a few years back in various places it would almost certainly be removed. Probably by battery fans, determined to force a prototype into use where it wasn’t needed…

My wife has a battery fan, which I think cost €1.99, and is practically useless.

On the matter of battery powered trains, I keenly await the entry into service of something battery powered, so we can see how it works in real life. Perhaps then, we can forget all about it, other than maybe for very short gaps in electrical feed, and move on to proving that hydrogen is no use for railway vehicles. I may very well be wrong, and will accept that with my customary good grace if and when it happens.

I am a little more optimistic about battery trains for both branch lines and for sections of main lines where electrification is problematic.
Whilst a practical test would be best, an ACCURATE forecast of the performance and usefulness of a battery train may be achieved as follows.
Take an existing EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit),  used on a route similar in line speed and gradient profile, to that proposed for battery power. Fit a KWH meter to measure the total energy used over a days operation. Assess the size of battery required to supply that many KWH, with a safety margin.
Allow for brief top up charges at the terminus.
Example the metered consumption of the EMU over a typical day was 1000 KWH.
Without any charging during the day, a battery able to supply 1000 KWH is needed in theory. In practice 150% of that figure would be prudent.

More complex example.
A days work consists of 5 return trips on a branch line. Each return trip uses 200 KWH. After each return trip there is a 6 minute layover with charging available at 250 kw.
Total energy used per day is 1000 KWH. But each  of the four 6 minute layovers gives a 25 KWH charge so the battery discharge is 900 KWH.

Even better would be to use for test purposes an existing DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) with ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION on the actual route proposed for battery operation. Fit KWH meters to measure the KWH used in a days work.

A purpose designed battery train should do better than a conversion.

The internal meetings I have been involved in regarding battery powered trains revolves around the impact charging has on existing electrification infrastructure. 

Traction power systems are designed with specific duty cycles based on traction loading of classic UK^▸ (United Kingdom) locomotives and EMU's   Some of the charging currents are mostly within the current capabilities of the system but the demand exceeds the duty cycle especially when a battery train comes off of a non electrified line into an electrified station / siding where the train turns round quite quickly.

This charging demand has to be added to the traction power demand for the existing timetable.

It is not impossible to resolve engineering wise, its just convincing the proponents of battery trains that addition investment and modifications need to be done to the existing traction power system, often a cost factor they had not considered

[broadgage]

For a short and relatively low performance battery train providing a through service from an electrified man line onto a branch, the battery charging demand is probably a small addition to the otherwise existing traction demand, certainly needs considering though.

Future electrification should certainly have some spare capacity built in, for either extensions, or for charging battery trains.

[Ralph Ayres]

a short and relatively low performance battery train providing a through service from an electrified man line onto a branch battery trains.

...or from an electrified line onto a pier where maintaining a live third rail is distinctly challenging?

[Rhydgaled]

On the matter of battery powered trains, I keenly await the entry into service of something battery powered, so we can see how it works in real life.

a practical test would be best

There has already been a 'practical test' of a battery-powered train, and this article on the IPEMU^▸ (Independely Powered Electic Multiple Unit (train running on batteries)) trial with a converted class 379 suggests it was even used in passenger service. I'm not sure if it was ever tried out on a non-electrified route though.

[broadgage]

I had forgotten about that trial, now some years ago. Sounds as though it went well, perhaps something similar could be used on the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) line from Paddington, to some place just beyond the present limit of the OHLE, and then further afield as confidence is gained.

[stuving]

I had forgotten about that trial, now some years ago. Sounds as though it went well, perhaps something similar could be used on the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) line from Paddington, to some place just beyond the present limit of the OHLE, and then further afield as confidence is gained.

There was a final report, which I found a while back, but I don't think it anything got onto the forum. I've posted something on the main IPEMU^▸ (Independely Powered Electic Multiple Unit (train running on batteries)) trial thread. That post also explains that the report is available on SPARK, which is accessible to anyone who goes through the registration process.

[bobm]

Disruption to replacement buses on Island Line
What's going on
Due to flooding between Ryde Pier Head and Shanklin, replacement buses are unable to run.  Disruption is expected until the end of the day.

What We're Doing About It

We have been informed of flooding on the Isle of Wight, this means that our rail replacement buses in place for planned engineering works are unable to run.

For further information or onward travel advice please speak to a member of staff or use a station help point.

We are very sorry for any delay that this may cause to your journey.

[Ralph Ayres]

Not the best thought-out explanation!  It now says the buses are delayed, not unable to run.  It's hard to see how flooding would have prevented all sections of the route being covered by buses, unless the flooding is particularly widespread or affects the bus depot, in which case why not say so? The Pier Head-Esplanade section would presumably have been a separate minibus, or even a locally-sourced 8 seater minicab, which you'd hope would have been unaffected.

[RichT54]

There's an article on the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) website about the recent flooding that affected the Island Line.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-58097095

SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) said during the recent flash floods - when more than a month's worth of rain fell in two hours - water was 18 inches (46cm) above the track at Ryde St John's Road, Sandown and Shanklin railway stations.

It said newly laid ballast had been washed away from underneath sleepers and electrical, signalling and points equipment had also been damaged by the water.

In a statement, the operator said: "We had been aiming to reopen the Island Line in the first half of next month, but flash flooding has added uncertainty to our programme.

"We are sorry for the ongoing uncertainty for our customers and the communities we serve, and are working incredibly hard to reopen the Island Line as soon as possible."

[bobm]

The fact there are still only two of the five 484 units on the Island might also be a factor.